This document contains Jill Cameron's self-evaluation of an audio recording of one of her science lessons along with samples of work from two students, one on-level and one below-level. Jill found that while her lesson went well, she identified areas for improvement such as slowing down her speech and using more affirmative language. The student work samples show improvement in spelling and sentence complexity for the on-level student but inconsistency for the below-level student who struggled to focus during lessons.

1. Standard B:
Delivers Effective Instruction
Teacher Candidate: Jill Cameron
Self-Evaluation of Audio Tape
Student Work Samples
Reflective Essay No. 2
Observation No. 2 (PDF file)

2. Self-Evaluation of Audio Tape
I used my phone to create a voice recording of my last science lesson. At only half an hour, the lesson was short, involved
and the framework focal point was Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks Speaking and Listening, grades PreK – 2.
p.37. #1-3. I used the time to help personally connect my students with the penguin unit that was coming to a close that
day. To do this, I had the class conduct an experiment using a bucket of cold water, Crisco and sandwich bags. The goal
of the activity was to give students an experience that would help them understand how the physical characteristics of
artic animals help them survive in the cold climates of the southern hemisphere. The experiment was a success. Students
not only enjoyed it, but each was able to demonstrate their personal “take away” verbally and in writing. Hearing the
lesson for a second time via the audio file reinforced what I thought immediately after it originally ended.
Throughout the lesson, my tone remained even when giving instruction and direction. I anticipated potential
problems before they happened and set expectations accordingly. I feel that I used inflection to help guide students and
keep them on track and I relied heavily on the Socratic Method, which in turn addressed the standard I wanted to achieve.
I liked the way I introduced the concept I wanted the students to understand using PAR method and feel that I provided an
adequate foundation on which the students were able to build. I realize now that my teaching style relies heavily on
discussion and I think that I was able to ensure that participation was encouraged and applied equitably. I also found that
I used whole class surveys as a frequent informal assessment tactic and capitalized on the results of each survey to
challenge misconceptions and incorporate prior knowledge.
Despite having an overall good impression of my audio file, I found many areas that could use improvement.
Specifically, I noticed that I had a tendency to use “up talk”, or elevate the sound of my voice at the end of a sentence that
wasn’t a question. I think this is an unfortunate habit that does little to inspire confidence, and I think it’s probably
confusing if used when giving direction or sharing content knowledge. To this point, I noticed that when I used “up talk” I
also used vocabulary that didn’t accurately convey my meaning. For example, when telling students that I wanted them to
each have something to share at the end of class, I used the word “should” when “have to” or “must” would have been a
better choice. Additionally, I’d work on slowing my pace and enunciating more clearly. I think that I speak too quickly
and string my words together, which undermines my ability to manage the class effectively.
When I first saw this assignment in the Student Practicum Handbook, I was skeptical, although I can admit that
feeling was truly founded in my dislike of hearing my own voice. In retrospect, having completed the assignment, I would
use this as a tool to improve my practice in the future. I was amazed by the degree to which I found myself using
multitasking management skills. For example, while supporting the student in front of me, I was often simultaneously
managing the class as a whole, or dealing with individual behaviors, and it was an unconscious effort. I do think that, if
permitted by school policy and my student’s parents, I would video a lesson rather than rely on pure audio. In my
particular circumstance, I derive more value from an audio representation of something when it is accompanied by a
visual component.

3. Student Work Samples
I found that it was easy to choose the two students whose work I wanted to follow, but struggled to find appropriate
samples given a few factors: first graders show large gains in knowledge over a long time period, but work products are
generally not advanced. Between snow, vacation, and sick days, consistency and growth across subject area seemed
stalled during my practicum. The one subject that the students did have every morning was phonics, and so I took my
selections from there and did have to reach back a few months prior to my arrival:
Student A: On Level
The pictures you see below were taken from this student’s phonics notebook and the assignment is one the entire class
receives at least a few times a week: use the word of the day in a sentence. As you can see, this student did just that.
The words, in chronological order from earliest to latest are: Yell (10/12), Walls (11/12), Fangs (1/13), Wise (2/13,), and
Kept (2/13). You’ll notice that a number of things here including the improvement in her spelling, handwriting and the
complexity of her sentences.

4. Student B: Below Level
As in the pictures above, the pictures you see below were taken from this student’s phonics notebook, the assigned
words are the same: Yell (10/12), Walls (11/12), Fangs (1/13), Wise (2/13,), and Kept (2/13). You’ll notice that his work is
inconsistent, he was able to distinguish between “to” and “too” when writing his sentence for “fangs”, but misspelled a
word wall word (some) in his sentence for “walls”. His last sentence was neatly written, the spelling was correct and
there were minimal corrections (erasing).

5. Reflective Essay No. 2
I found that it was particularly challenging to find two students from whom to collect five work samples in the
same subject area during my practicum. I started my practicum after the holiday break and ended the week following
February vacation. During that time there were a few Monday holidays, students were absent due to flu and there were so
many “special” occasions and “pull outs” that consistency within the content areas was difficult to find. However, every
day the students had a phonics lesson first thing in the morning. The lesson generally followed the same pattern: introduce
word wall words, introduce a new concept or pattern, introduce new spelling words, discuss meaning and craft sentences
using the new knowledge. I was comfortable enough with the phonics program (Fundations) and felt that reaching back to
look at work products created during the first half of the year would be appropriate and give me more material to with
which to work. Once I settled on the content area, I was quickly able to choose one at level and one below level student,
who both completed enough of the same work to make a comparison worthwhile.
Both the at-level and below-level students received the same level of whole class structure and support during
lessons. All lessons started immediately after morning meeting and took place on the classroom rug and were introduced
with a whole-class, student lead reading of a phonics chant. From here the lesson took a teacher driven direction and the
new concept or words were introduced. Typical strategies used at this stage were: review, whole class discussion,
sounding out words together while simultaneously “tapping out” them out, sample sentence structures and “marking” up
the special features of a word such as a digraph, “glued sound”, suffix, or consonant blend. The work samples that I
choose are the final products of these lessons. After the phonics routine on the morning meeting rug, students returned to
their seats and wrote the word of the day and one sentence in their phonics notebooks (I added this in blue font on the
work samples in the event the samples themselves aren’t clear).
The at-level student was able to pay attention for the duration of each lesson and often volunteered sentences to
use a class samples. My rule for this was: you may use the sentence if it is your own, but if you did not give the example,
you would need to write something original. This particular student appeared to relish teacher feedback and always used
the sentences she volunteered. I found that if she did not volunteer a sentence, she would minimally change one that was
given and hope to pass it as her own. After seats were moved mid-February, I noticed that the below-level and at-level
student were seated together and the below-level student adopted this same strategy. Based on my own observations, the
at-level student freely shared with him. She didn’t appear to respond to “tapping” the sounds of words but could often be
prompted into self-correcting when supported by simply teacher assisted “sounding out” of words, or if redirected to the
word wall. One of things that stood out to me about her work was the marked improvement in spelling and legibility over
time. Even more encouraging, the detail she added and the complexity of her sentences increased from “Don’t yell in the
hows.” to “I kept my cat in for the day”. I was really impressed by the sentence that she wrote for “fangs” but saw her
backslide and rush through “wise”. However, with the word “wise”, she displayed a great ability to “mark up” the words
in her sentences. In all, I think that she showed improvement throughout the school year, especially when given the
chance to work with a word that sparked her creativity.

6. The second sampling of pictures in the pages above comes from the below-level student. The words chosen are
identical to those I displayed for the at-level student. In this particular example, the below-level student struggled to sit
through both the morning meeting and the phonics lesson and rarely volunteered sentences although he did like to tell
everyone what the word of the day was when given the chance. Once the students left the rug and starting writing in their
notebooks, this student often needed some direction before he was able to write. He rarely used the world wall, but was
receptive to the “tapping out” strategy. This strategy required that the student tapped his fingers whenever he heard a
distinct sound in the word he was trying to spell. When redirected to try this strategy, this student was often able to figure
out how to spell the word he was stuck on without further support. Time management was often his largest obstacle; he
would think about what he wanted to write until warned that the lesson was ending and then rush through his work in an
effort to get his sentence completed. You’ll notice this quality in his samples. One thing that impressed me by his work
was the way he improved his word spacing over time (and thus the legibility of his words) and his ability to distinguish
between “to” and “too” when writing a sentence for “fangs”. This tells me that he has a lot of potential and is able to
grasp some of the more abstract qualities of the language, but he needs strategies that will help him stay on task. I think
that giving him a break between morning meeting and the phonics lesson would greatly improve his ability to manage his
time. At this point, sitting on the rug for more than 20 minutes is too long for this student.
There is little room for creativity in the phonics lessons because the school follows a very strict curriculum with
scripted lessons and I think it becomes a bit mundane for the students. I think that if I had the ability to be more creative
with the lessons and strategies, I would introduce the lesson, or end the morning meeting with some movement, to help
settle the students like my lower level example, who have trouble sitting for extended periods. I’d also make some
changes to the “tapping” strategy. I like it and it clearly works for some of the class, however, I noticed that the act of
separately tapping each finger for every sound heard, involved a bit too much dexterity for the majority of the kids in the
classroom. I noticed some students focused more on how to tap, than what they were tapping. I think that clapping might
work better for this group. I’d also like to spend more time reviewing the tools students have available in the room, a
prime example being the word wall, which my lower level student rarely used.